Swift

Commissioner v. Swift

Good Law
54 F.2d 746·10 A.F.T.R. (P-H) 988·3 U.S. Tax Cas. (CCH) 859·1932 U.S. App. LEXIS 2941
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJanuary 5, 1932No. 6581California3,336 words

Opinion

Lead Opinion

Wilbur, J.

The petitioner seeks to review an order of the Board of Tax Appeals reversing a determination by petitioner of a deficiency income tax for the year ending December 31, 1924. The sole question involved in the controversy is whether or not a sale by respondent of certain oil lands for the sum of $900,-000 was consummated within the meaning of that term as used in the Revenue Act of 1921 ( 42 Stat. 227 ) before the 31st day of December, 1921.

A contract for the sale of an undivided three-fourths interest of certain land was entered into on the 4th of March, 1921. This contract provided for the payment of the purchase price in installments, $180,000 on March 25, 1921, and the sum of $90,000 on March 15, 1922, and $90,000 semiannually thereafter until the entire purchase price was paid September 15, 1925, Upon payment of the first installment, the vendor was to deposit in escrow with the Los Angeles Trust & Savings Bank of Los Angeles, Cal., a grant deed of the property sold, except as to certain unpatented lands as to which a quit-' claim deed was to be deposited in escrow. At the time of the sale, the property was in the possession of the vendee, Chanslor-Canfield Midway Oil…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.